Talk:Montreal Canadiens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Montreal Canadiens is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 15, 2004.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

January 19, 2004

Refreshing brilliant prose

Kept

September 7, 2005

Featured article review

Demoted

Current Status: Former featured article

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). Edit this message Ice hockey Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

To-do list for Montreal Canadiens:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Verify: Add more references
Expand: Retired numbers section to Honoured members section
Other: Correct leaders section to make it viewable in 1024*768 mode

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Canada Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of the Canadian sport WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Quebec Portal

This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Archives
Nov 2003-April 2007

[edit] The crowd chant/song

Does anybody know the chant/song the crowd at the Molson Centre sings when their team is leading? I've been wanting to know for decades. 68.147.67.250 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's usually the "olé olé" song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=B43bII4XH_E). 67.68.88.155 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French in the colors section in the infobox

I know that "bleu, blanc, et rouge" is something of a nickname or catchphrase for the team, but this is the English language version of WP. While I don't think it's exactly "harmful" to have the French in the infobox, I think that readers are done at least a small disservice by having to read a nickname first. Croctotheface 09:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason why the French should come before the English, since this is a description of colors, not catch-phrases. The French should still be included, but should come after the English. RavenStorm 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a seperate info box about the nicknames? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.172.28 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Anyone who thinks the French should not come first doesn't understand the Habs. Hab-talk constantly mixes the two languages, and it doesn't really matter which comes first. It's not like the article is in French, for crying out loud. The fact is that no one has ever referred to the Habs as "blue, white and red," but they are often referred to as "bleu, blanc et rouge."MikeFlynn52 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even amongst English speaking fans, the Canadiens are always nicknamed the "bleu, blanc et rouge".

Disagreed. English commentators and other media use "bleu blanc rouge" as a reference to a team nickname, not the actual colours of the team. This nickname, in turn, is a reference to the team colours. The distinction should be made between team colours, and nicknames. As proof, the previous poster used "bleu blanc rouge" as a noun, not three separate adjectives. In this context, we are strictly referring to the colours of the jersey and logo. Ideally, there should be a different category for team nicknames, amongst which the Habs and the "bleu blanc rouge" would find place. There should NOT be any French translation of the team colours AT ALL. Cristo39 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Success rate

The statement that Montreal has the third-highest success rate of any pro sports franchise is misleading. The Celtics and Yankees may have a higher percentage of championships, but Montreal has the highest rate of championship victories during eligible years. If you only count the years that these three teams were actually eligible to win the championship (i.e., years the teams actually EXISTED), then Montreal has the highest rate of championship of any pro sports franchise in the history of the world.MikeFlynn52 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The highest rate during eligible years? As in, during the years all three teams have existed? If that is what you are getting at, that is an arbitrary distinction, which is strongly frowned upon. Rating it by percentage of championships won is the most NPOV version, but really, I question whether the comparisons to the Celtics and Yankees is even relevant. Resolute 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Having both statistics would be ideal. However, I am skeptic as to the accuracy of the suggested statistic. I recommend a solid source rather than first hand research. Cristo39 05:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

On a Related note, what is the consensus, have the Habs won 23 or 24 cups. I know they won 23 in the NHL and one before the NHL, so they have actually won 24 cups. Recently this has been changed back and forth a few times.Dbrodbeck 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to the silliness of the discussion, have you investigated pro soccer teams in North America, for example? DC United has won 33% of that league's championships - no criteria for longevity...I'll add that until strict criteria are added. AlbertHall (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1920.gif

Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1920.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Resolute 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1918.gif

Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1918.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Fixed. Resolute 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

I think the logos should be put into a collage together in the Logos section of the article, rather than being pictures all scattered around. It might look better. Sportskido8 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree... everything looks disorganized. There should be a visual timeline, not just a textual one. Cristo39 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who were the first Montreal Canadiens?

As it reads today, the article suggests that the team known as Les Canadiens in the 1909-1910 NHA season became the Montreal Canadiens in 1910-1911. However, it would seem that the 1910-1911 Montreal Canadiens team was actually the continuance of the 1909-1910 Haileybury Hockey Club. (See articles at Haileybury Hockey Club, Toronto Blueshirts, and National Hockey Association.) Now I know these articles are poorly referenced, but I have read on the subject and from what I can tell, "Les Canadiens" are unrelated to today's Montreal Canadiens. It would be interesting to see if anybody has some good sources to set the record straight on this matter. 209.105.207.181 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's actually the case, and I've had the article reading that from time to time; the original cite is from Coleman's Trail of the Stanley Cup. The problem is, there's a powerful stretch of revisionist history, going through to the Habs front office, that just can't stand the concept that the technical lineage of the team starts in an Anglo mining town, not in the Quebecois heartland. I think TotSC is referenced in the article, but if you want the page ref, it's pg. 201, Vol I, with the following text:

(1911) Prior to the annual meeting of the National Hockey Association, an item in the Montreal Herald stated that he Club Athletique-Canadien, a registered and incorporated body, claimed the name Canadiens. Mr. George Kennedy, proprietor of this club, was seeking admission to the NHA and if refused would insist that the NHA drop the name Les Canadiens under which a franchise was operated the previous year. He had not objected to the use of the name at the time, although he considered it was undoubtedly an infringement. The annual meeting of the NHA was held November 12th, 1910 ... The Canadien Athletic Club represented by George Kennedy was granted a franchise, as was Quebec represented by Joe Power and M.J. Quinn, taking over the franchises of Haileybury and Cobalt. It was understood that the Canadien club in acquiring the Haileybury franchise would also obtain the players of that club. However, the contracts up to that time did not provide any control over the players at the termination of a season and the clubs had bid against one another for their services. Les Canadiens franchise owned by J.A. O'Brien of Renfrew, remained in the association and it was expected to be taken over by a Toronto club in 1912.

RGTraynor 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the revisionist history will of the Canadiens is, this does need to be corrected. We shouldn't let attempts at rewriting history overrule the facts. Resolute 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Have made edits to the article today to clarify the origins of the franchise. 209.105.207.181 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Stanley Cups

We need to fix this problem with how many they have. Either this article is incorrect or List of Stanley Cup champions is incorrect. What are some reliable sources for stuff like this? Bsroiaadn^Talk 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Habs have 23 in the NHL and one in the NHA. They have won 24 Stanley Cups, no matter what anyone says. I have no idea why people still seem to think they have 23. Well I gues they have 23 and one more...Dbrodbeck 11:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's 24 Cup championships. The Montreal Canadiens and the Stanley Cup, are older then the NHL itself. The Habs first Cup victory was in 1916 (a year and a half, before the NHL's birth). GoodDay 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so why do people keep changing it to 23 on the page. Seems to me it ought to be 24 in the article. Dbrodbeck 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Likely because they are using an NHL source, and the NHL often disregards the other major leagues that have existed in the past. Resolute 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Canadiens hang a banner for 1916, so it should be recognized here.Dknights411 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top Infobox

The 'french version' of Montreal Canadiens has been removed. What, about the Quebec Nordiques page? GoodDay 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO the french name which is the official name of the franchise should be included in the infobox, just like in the Nordiques article. --Krm500 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm neither for or against 'the french version' (recently, I've stop pushing english on English Wikpedia). I'm just concerned that the Nords and Habs pages are inconsistant. Hopefully, these 'french version' inconsistancies will be resolved soon. GoodDay 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't care either but I was just thinking of the Manual of Style. The MOS for infoboxes say that the english form should be the default and the native should be presented in parenthesis. --Krm500 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That version is being added to the infobox (English top, French bottom and in parentheses), as per discussion above. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Cup Drought

Length of drought altered to reflect lockout season. Only thirteen seasons have elapsed since the Canadiens last cup win, though fourteen years have passed.

[edit] Kovalev and the C

So, Kovalev had the C in one game where Koivu did not play. I wonder, should Kovalev then be listed as a captain? This happens now and then, where someone is given a C when the captain is out.Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, interim captains are not listed in that section. Especially when it is only one game. Reso lute 17:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall Kovalev (or anybody else) wearing the C, during any of Koivu's absensces this season. The Habs simply go with three A's. Actually, nobody's worn the C during Koivu's captaincy tenure, since Shayne Corson. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halak & Price

Would somebody set up the current roster's goaltender section, to make it easier to switch Halak & Price during their calls ups/send downs? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking...this is how its set up on all pages. All you have to do is overwrite Halak's info with Price's info. -Djsasso (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But is there a way to 'hide' each of the goalies, when they're sent down to the AHL? Rather then going throw the trouble of editing-in/editing out. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Don't you think it would be helpful to add a pronunciation? Most Americans have always called the Habs 'the Canadians', I doubt more then a few even know it's an e in the name. --MichiganCharms (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation is still the same, its just the spelling that is different. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, in fact, I find it annoying when people pronounce it differently...Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard a Canadian announcer refer to the team as the "Canadi- ANNS", it's always the "Canadi- ENZ". -MichiganCharms (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadians is still pronounced enz, atleast up here in Canada. -Djsasso (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the same way "Canadians' is pronounced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard it pronounced any differently in New England. We know from "enz" here. (Then again, with a basketball team called the "Sehl-tiks," we might be more sensitive than most of the need to pay attention.) RGTraynor 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so back to the pronunciation thing, so I mean, seriously, I rarely hear a Canadian call them the Candienz, we (and this is just in my experience) seem to pronounce it the same as 'Canadians'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I don't know why people seem to think otherwise, everywhere in English Canada the team name is pronounced "Ca·na·di·ans". When "Canadiens" is pronounced in French, it is "Ca·neh·dienne"(Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

No one in Canada pronouces Canadians as Canadi-ANNS. Even in reguards to actual people as opposed to the team. They pronounce it Canadi-ENS. And Canadiens is pronounced as Canadi-ENZ which is virtually the same pronounciation. Its due to the English-French relationship in this country that the english pronunciation has changed to end with a sound of ENS as opposed to ANNS as the spelling would indicate. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halak et al

When Halak was born his country of birth was called Czechoslovakia, as Kostitsyns were born in the USSR. SHould we not be consisten? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, standard is to list as the country was at time of birth. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought so, thanks Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm Grabovski was born in East Germany, should his birthplace be stated that way as well? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kovalev and the 'C'

Is Kovalev wearing the 'C', now that Koivu is injured? I thought they were going with 3 'A's; If he's wearing the 'C'? so we'll have to add it to Kovy, at the current roster section. Sidenote = If he's not? Those people posting at the TSN official website, must be dreaming. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.habsinsideout.com/files/hio/imagecache/littleimage/files/hio/images/0kapnkovy.gif

He is only the interim Captain. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Kovalev is wearing the 'C' (interim-bases), while Koivu is out of the lineup. Would it be alright to add an un-linked C, as we do with interim alternate captains? PS- I guess Carbo has decided to 'pass' the C around this season (the last Hab to wear it, in Koivu's absense was Corson; ironically another #27). GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Conference Champions?

Not yet; That title belongs to the Eastern Conference team that makes the 2008 Cup Finals. However, we're having a problem with editors, who think Conf Champs means top-Eastern team in regular season standings. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, but at first I thought the Conference Champions meant during the regular season, not the champions of their respective Conference in the playoffs. It is a little misleading. Is there anyway to clarify it a bit more so that there aren't so many unnecessary edits? 71.7.210.87 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, most people understand that you aren't the Conference Champion till you win the Prince of Wales Trophy or Clarence Campbell Trophy. But I do see how people can make the mistake. -Djsasso (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The key to it all is at the Prince of Wales Trophy & Clarence S. Campbell Bowl articles. There, the NHL's criteria for Conference Champions is explained. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1993 Adams Division champions?

No they weren't. The Boston Bruins finished in first place in the Division. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only Major League Team in Montreal?

In the summary it says "The Canadiens are not only the sole major sports league team in Montreal." I don't know what definition of major league you're using, but what about the Montreal_Alouettes, the Montreal CFL team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.18.145 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alouettes are not one of the 4 major leagues. NFL, MLB, NHL & NBA. -Djsasso (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One could make the argument that the Als are in the major league of Canadian Football though (which, frankly, is why I have always disliked that bit) Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

They would be in the top Canadian league. But the major leagues are the top leagues in their respective sports. The NFL is quite obviously a higher level of league than the CFL. Therefore the NFL would be the major league of football. Yes obviously canadian football has slight rule changes from the NFL but its still basically the same game. Just like hockey has considerably different rules in europe to the NHL. And most people out there understand the major leagues to be the 4 majors. -Djsasso (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably drop the entire statement anyway. "Major league" is a rather POV term these days, even if the traditional "big four" is well entrenched. Reso lute 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well entrenched in the United States, at least, but this isn't the American Wikipedia. RGTraynor 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By popularity (TV ratings anyway) NASCAR is bigger than the NHL, hell the MLS gets better ratings often than the NHL, I understand niether of these things, alas, I do not live in the US... I also could argue about Canadian v American football being that similar, but that is for email I figure not for here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinion put forward by Djsasso is just that - an opinion. A valid one, obviously, but still an opinion. For a different view, I note that Major North American professional sports leagues describes the CFL as being a major league, albeit not one of the big four. Alternatively, it could be argued that since the NFL is not in Canada, the CFL is the major football league in this jurisidiction (there is no rule that we have to look at this from a North American perspective). And if we took a global view, there would be yet another analysis - even the NFL would come across as a regional league. In the end, what constitutes a "major league" is just WP:OR opinion, or at best an American-centric view that has no place in this article. I would remove the sentence entirely. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup I agree, I was just stating why it was the way it was. I have no problem removing it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I left the reference to it being the only NHL team in Quebec, and will others refine the sentence if necessary.Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WRONG MEASURE!

The percentage that is used to judge about the most prolific team all sports considered, is a wrong measure, a bad perception. One example: imagine that the Habs existed since 10 years, have won 5 Stanley Cup, and there you go the same percentage calculation would put such a team on the top... It actually tells NOTHING, other than that some numerologist had a hard-on for those numbers to be used in judging (thus wrongfully). Another example: let's say that the habs were born the same year than the Celtics, and using the actual results that took place then after, the same statistical measure would put them first, above the Yankees...

In effect, basic statistical theory tells us that the more a draw is done from some sample over time, the more its result would tend to the calculated probability - without any consideration to human factors and talent... However, even though the Habs have existed since long before the Celtics were born, this flawed measure still shows a high percentage, which puts them well above the Celtics as the number of participations (the number of "draws") MUST have a weight into the balance, not only the percentage of wins since some team is playing its game - the perception of a gambler is not a correct perception when talking about sports, since a myriad of factors other than numbers have a decisive weight ;-)...

Conclusion: the second half of the second paragraph evoking success in terms of percentage is irrelevant and should disappear. IMHO, we should stick to the absolute number of championships, period. --HawkFest (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Percentage is a useful, universally recognized measure used throughout the statistical world, never mind the sporting world. While your arguments are a bit on the impenetrable side, it seems your objection is more that vis-a-vis the leading teams in other sports, percentage isn't giving the result you want. That's a poor reason to change methodology under any circumstances. I'm comfy with the current version. RGTraynor 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it seems that this measure was actually introduced in the article concerning the Montreal Canadiens, for the exact reason you are evoking! Like someone projecting himself onto others... And no, percentage is NOT a universal measure for judging everything... Just consider my examples, these are blatant contradictions that invalidate that measure. If it was such a "universal" truth as you are arguing, you should not get contradictory facts and/or logics, that's the way it is with scientific methodology... Please, science is not a religion, it should not carry dogmas as what your argument is evoking, to the point of pretending itself as some "Universal truth", especially when used in an encyclopedia for giving credibility to some perception! I've been at University in operational research, math and computer science, and I am sufficiently aware about those scientific facts to know that this measure is not valid in the current context --HawkFest (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the more you sample the closer you get to the expected value is certianly true. However, this is only true if you assume the population being sampled does not change. Thus, the premise of the argument against using percentages here is invalid..Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the sample does not change, exactly, which invalidates the measure! Not to mention that a myriad of other factors are not taken into account when looking at such a ill-perceptual measure... and it seems you did not understand my "premise" as you said - sorry if I was not clear enough: judging via this measure, the percentage, assumes that as such we consider the same sample/population, which is not the case, thus such a measure is irrelevant. Simple enough... As I said, just consider a team that exists since 5 years and have won the cup thrice, and there you go with the percentage, in the ditch, since suich a team should be considered as... As what, what would be the real goal behind the measure? It can say whatever you'd like it to say in the end, which makes it irrelevant... By using that kind of measure, it really looks like someone usurping a scientific method to make it reflect some personal preference!... --HawkFest (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say sample, I said population. That is quite a difference, the sample is a subset of the population. It does not invalidate the measure, it invalidates your problem with the measure. This is also not usurping hte scientific method, the scientific method involves testing hypotheses, it does not involve simply calculating percentages. The percentage here says no matter what the population, the Canadiens have played well.Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Population or sample: it invalidates the measure in itself since it never stays the same. Again, consider my above-mentioned examples (e.g. a team that has a 5 years existence and has won the Cup thrice), they are straightforward and are easier to make you understand what I am saying, as they completely remove the scope/goal you want to use this measure for, which makes the measure irrelevant... Revisionism should have no room in an encyclopedia! --HawkFest (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather we had a yes or no column and do a chi squared test? You are the only person here who seems to have a problem with the use of the percentage. Do you not like oh, save percentage? Each game has a different population of shooters take shots on Price or Halak. So should we list each shot and each goal? On average, they stop pucks, and lots of them. These are descriptive statistics. As pointed out earlier, this is pretty much universally accepted. Your point about revisionism is hard to understand. I truly have no idea what you mean.Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

HawkFest - your continued rewording of your entries on this talk page makes it quite difficult to follow what you're trying to say, is not in keeping with general policy regarding talk pages, and is a form of revisionism that you mention (somewhat arbitrarily). Nevertheless, your overall point is quite clear: you are a rabid fan of the Canadiens, and you object to them being called "only" the third-most successful franchise in the history of all North American professional sports, which probably encompasses 125 (or more) current teams. However, as has been pointed out, the measure is reasonable, cited, and accepted by consensus. Frank | talk 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, HawkFest, you don't like it; we get it. If and when you can rally consensus to your point of view, then that is what will prevail. RGTraynor 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "Men's"

The edit summary on the edit removing "men's" from the description states that nothing in the rules prevents women from playing. Is that claim sourceable? Have any women ever played in the NHL or on the Canadiens? Frank (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Manon Rhéaume played for the Tampa Bay Lightning. -Djsasso (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exhibition games only (in Rheaume's case); but you're correct - woman are eligible, to play in the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Their name in french

Hi,

In french, it is Le Canadien de Montreal, NOT Les Canadiens de Montreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakninja (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is Les Canadiens, because it is a group of Canadiens. The form you mention is singular. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Both are used. The singular usage is explained by the traditional name, "Club de hockey canadien". Hence, the team is called "les Canadiens" and "le Canadien" with equal frequency here in Quebec, both by fans and by broadcasters. 74.59.88.201 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English pronunciation of the name

I've contributed a few bits to the intro about the English pronunciation of the name. I'd like to submit this YouTube video as evidence of what I'm talking about. Within the first 20 seconds, the voice-over narrator uses the kuh-nay-dee-ENZ pronunciation, and then a commentator uses the "Canadians" pronunciation (which the broadcasters use throughout this video, and which is the only English pronunciation ever used here in Montreal). Emile (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of the commentators are using the exact same pronuncation as far as I hear in that video. So I don't think it goes to support your arguement. -Djsasso (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen again carefully, right at the beginning. He definitely puts emphasis on the final syllable that doesn't exist in the word "Canadians". But anyhow, I have no problem with this staying out of the article. Emile (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I assure you the different pronunciation does exist. You can here Jacqui Delaney from 106.9 The Bear fm radio in Ottawa and TSN sports commentators use it all the time. However, being a "misguided attempt" or even an "attempt to emulate the French", for that matter, is clearly POV unless properly sourced. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I am not saying there aren't different ways of saying it. But I have a feeling that comes down to accent more than intended differences or a misguided attempt. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's not due to accent either. Some English sports commentators, mainly the ones I named above, do purposely pronounce "Canadiens" and "Canadians" differently. My point was it's hard to prove why they do so. Now there are 2 questions we need to ask ourselves before we include the entry; first, is it notable enough to warrant an entry here at Wikipedia. I personally don't think so, but I could careless either way. Next, if the difference is notable enough, do we need to explain the intent of the difference, ie. "attempt to emulate French". Again, I don't think so and such a statement is clearly POV unless well-sourced. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I have ever heard it pronounced "anns" out west here in english canada. But reguardless I don't think it belongs in the article and already removed it a few days ago. -Djsasso (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Dorvaq; it doesn't matter whether something exists, it matters whether it can be sourced. It's better off out of the article. RGTraynor 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split proposal

I suggest that we move the Franchise History to an appropriate 'History of the Montreal Canadiens' article. I am prepared to do the work. I think we should be working on the Canadiens as they will be getting lots of attention in the new year. Alaney2k (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. With 100 years of history, there certainly is cause to split the article. Reso lute 18:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, more so than for any other team. RGTraynor 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup I have no problem with it. As long as the typical short summary is there etc. Makes a tonne of sense. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started work at User:Alaney2k/sandbox/History of the Montreal Canadiens and User:Alaney2k/sandbox/Summary History of the Montreal Canadiens. The Summary is what will go into the main article. Alaney2k (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The split is done. The Canadiens article does need some work. At one time it was FA status. It would be good to get it to good again, for a start. I have not really touched the current time period text much. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are going to want to add a second NFCC template to each of the logo images in the history article before a bot comes along and blanks the images from it for not providing a fair use rationale. Reso lute 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Some should come out of the main article, so I haven't done the furs. Alaney2k (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Flags

Jeepers, who deleted the flags from the Top Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

They were removed awhile ago to stop an edit war. -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But now, it's out of sync with the other NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen to be bold & re-added the flags. Perhaps the opposers have moved on. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The opposers was the fellow who has been pushing quebec pov changes for the last month or so. You know who it is. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Block every IP he creates. PS- I'll revert my change (per your advice) - But, it sure feels like we're being bullied though. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't permanently block IPs or that would be what I would do, but because an IP could be recycled to someone else it could end up causing collateral damage. If he keeps it up after this current block expires I will take it to the ANI board and see if they have a way to deal with it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing bugs me more, then an editor choosing to hide behind IP addresses. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)